Try again.

Morrison in the X-Men:

1. introduces a new mutation from day one without explanation.

2. banishes costumes and outright mocks them.

3. has Cyclops mercy killing someone (the same Cyclops who has time and again proclaimed that when there's life there's hope).

4. writes Cyclops and Jean as having marital problems that didn't exist before just because it fitted his plans (and ego), forsakening decades long stories involving those two.

5. kills Magneto and Jean in the same issue.

6. introduces sex related and drug related storylines in the X-Men, involving teenagers.

7. has Cyclops drinking and getting drank.

8. has Cyclops cheat on his wife with a mortal enemy whom he apparently trusts enough to take her advice on his marital problems.

9. Jean tortures Emma.

10. Xavier has a twin sister whom he murders while in the womb (!!!!!!).

11. has Beast proclaim without any reason he is gay!

12. has the X-Men reveal their link to the School for Gifted Youngsters.

13. has Cyclops kiss Emma over Jean's grave!

14. has Wolverine mercy killing Jean (mercy killing seems to be a theme)!

All those at the top of my head. If those are good X-Men stories than I come from Mars.

Stories that are true to the characters and are lazily written and poor will get as much (if not more) complaints from this reader.

I want good, well written and true to the character stories. Surely, it isn't so hard, is it?

There is a clear blueprint for success with that team - just check out the JB/Chris Claremont run for how to do it right.

That blueprint had been imitated and run into the ground for years upon years by the time Morrison took over X-Men. Not just in X-Men, either -- in any number of other superhero comics with young adult protagonists. And I flipped through enough tedious X-Men titles in the 90s to agree with Morrison that something drastic needed to be done.

And if tweaking genre conventions is inherently bad, well, I guess Stan and Jack never should've had Reed, Johnny, Ben and Sue bickering with each other. They should've just been smiling cardboard personalities like the early 60s JLA.

*****************

That's a good question, but here's the difference as I see it:

Stan and Jack created the Fantastic Four and established the "ground rules" for how those characters should be treated. Had Morrison created a new superhero team and done the same things he did in X-Men, I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. (I probably wouldn't have read it, but it wouldn't bother me.)

However, the X-Men were an established set of characters. The ground rules were already in place when Morrison started writing the book. That's a big difference to me.

I'd also disagree with the notion that the traditional X-Men formula had been "run into the ground" by the mid-1990s. That's like saying the concept of "With great power comes great responsibility" is played out in Spider-Man. The concepts themselves are timeless - it's the execution that can vary.

Or if superhero stories start to feel repetitive, perhaps that's a sign that it's time for the reader to move along to something new, rather than a sign that the comics themselves need to change.

As for Grant Morrison, there's no shame in saying the guy has done some good work on traditional superhero books. He is a good writer and has written plenty of stories that I like. However, his run on X-Men isn't on that list.

Adam's comparison to Frank Miller is a good one. I love Miller's work on Daredevil back in the '80s, but that doesn't stop me from loathing what he's doing now on All-Star Batman.

Even favorite authors don't score every time with me. I eventually dropped Morrison's X-MEN and DOOM PATROL. I went no further with 7 SOLDIERS than the first issue. However, I loved or am loving JLA, 52, ALL-STAR SUPERMAN, and BATMAN.

And there have been very different tones among Morrison's work, even the works appearring concurrently.

He's not perfect, but he is good.

QUOTE: It sounds like someone who'd rather be able to quote some pretty poetry than to actually get excited that the mystery super-villain MIGHT be "fill in the blank". Sounds like you're upset that people are enjoying something you don't.

Doesn't particularly read like that to me; just reads like a criticism of the work.

I am often reminded of a line in the old John Astin TV movie, EVIL ROY SLADE. "I never changed my mind before. Does it hurt?"

And he couldn't possibly be referring to a general tone encountered elsewhere.